2011 (5) TMI 831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddl. JIT (TDS), Lucknow imposed a penalty of Rs. 46,700 under s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not file its quarterly TDS returns for the financial year 2007-08, which were mandatorily required to have been filed in the prescribed Form Nos. 24Q and 26Q within the stipulated time as prescribed under sub-s. (3) of s. 200 of the IT Act, 1961 r/w r. 31A of the IT Rules, 1962. In the instant case, the position of the returns in the prescribed Forms 24Q and 26Q filed beyond the prescribed time is as under : Financial year Form No. Quarter ending Due date of filing returns Date of filing returns Period of delay 2007-08 24Q 1st 15-7-2007 9-8-2007 24 2007-08 24Q 2nd 15-10-20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per provisions of sub-s. (3) of s. 200 of the IT Act, 1961 read with r. 31A of the IT Rules, 1962. He further submitted that the whole of the due tax amount was deducted and it was paid to the credit of Government in time. He also brought to my notice that the quoting of deductee PANs in e-TDS statements has become mandatory from 1st Oct., 2007. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, to ensure better compliance in quoting of PAN in the e-TDS statements, IT Department has mandated that statements with less than specified percentage of quoting of deductee PAN will not be accepted. A press release about the same has been issued by the Ministry of Finance. Shri R.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that to incorpor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and contacted personally with the deductees and after collecting the PAN filed the e-TDS statements in Form Nos. 24Q and 26Q. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from filing the e-TDS return within the limitation period. Even otherwise, default committed by the assessee was technical and venial for which no penalty should have been imposed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26. 4.1 There is no dispute that the quarterly statements were filed, of course, late by certain days. There is also no dispute that the tax was deducted and was paid to the credit of Government in ....